Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiteCastle

In a way, I can understand what those federal appeals judges were saying. They were not saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government. They were saying that in fact it is not for them to decide what is and is not covered under the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment. It is for the Supreme Court to decide that. Sounds like non activists judges to me and I agree with that reasoning.


10 posted on 06/04/2009 11:59:57 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Old Teufel Hunden

Alt Teufel,

Sounds more or less right to me. Didn’t the ninth circus just say the 2nd was “incorporated?” I think the question is headed to the Supremes. Let it get there before Sonia, please.


12 posted on 06/04/2009 12:26:36 PM PDT by Mad Dawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
-- They were not saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government. --

They said that directly, and pointed at Presser as compelling that outcome.

15 posted on 06/04/2009 12:34:28 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

The Supreme Court of the United States did decide in Heller that the 2nd Amendment is a private, not collective right. That ruling applies to all 50 (or 57) states.
Allowing states to more narrowly circumscribe federally guaranteed rights contradicts not only generally recognized notions of federalism (ex. we have standard heights for interstate overpasses and trailer rig sizes) but also the constitutional doctrine of `preemption’: where federal and state laws conflict, federal law preempts state law.
Again, the SCOTUS ruled in Heller that federal law is the 2nd Amendment is a private, not collective, right, as applied to the District of Columbia. There is no reason to dilute that right here by saying that a state can infringe on the right as interpreted by the highest court.
Moreover, states can give greater rights than federal law, but not less. The centralized government, power aggrandizers want to be able to use the above rationale to justify encroachments on individual liberty, but they can’t have it both ways, they can’t say federal law trumps state law only applies where it advances their agenda. (examples: just last November, Article 2, ``Requirements for the office of the presidency’—ignored; the 14th Amend. enabling/implementing the civil rights statutes following the war—enforced; the US Code regarding naturalization & immigration of aliens—ignored; etc.)
Of course that’s just stuff they teach in law schools, with the flip side being, as your post points out—try and explain it all to the subjects of the Peoples Republic of California; even if they vote, their courts may rule: `Nyet’.
In any event no government or court `gives’ us anything; if they are `wise latinas’ they simply recognize and respect God-given rights, i.e. the reason we have `Liberty’ on our coins. The natural law right of self-defense and defense of others trumps any artificial limiting constructs that governments (see: `Democrats’) would assert.
The NRA, God bless `em, is fighting the control freaks & gun grabbers as hard as ever. Let’s send them some more money.


18 posted on 06/04/2009 1:15:03 PM PDT by tumblindice (Americas Founding Fathers, all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson